Abstract
COMMUNITY LIVING IN VERTICAL HOUSING
Megh Mittal
Guided by Ar.Garima BuragohainVIT’s Padmabhushan Dr.Vasantdada Patil College of Architecture,Pune mittal.megh.pvpcoa1924@gmail.com
Migration has led to a large no.of world's population to move from villages and towns to cities for numerous reasons. With the limitation of land in cities architects, planners, and engineers moved their attention from horizontal housing to vertical housing to cater to the growing urban population. With advancements in science and construction technology, we have been able to build large multi-story buildings rising to ‘n’ no of floors.Services, structural stability, and other aspects have all been addressed, but one of the most crucial factors "social interaction" appears to have been overlooked.
In the Indian context, the importance of community spaces becomes even more essential as people are deeply rooted to their culture and profoundly linked to their heritage and traditions.
The research aims to 1) Understand various factors that need to be considered for the design of community spaces in vertical housing.2)Find out various spaces that can be designed for providing a strong sense of community at intermediate levels in vertical housing. The research compares three vertical housing schemes through parameters such as percentage of community spaces compared to built, community spaces on ground v/s community spaces at intermediate levels, community space share, accessibility to community spaces etc as a study to find out different community spaces that can be provided in a vertical housing at intermediate levels.
Keywords: Vertical communities,Vertical housing,Community Living, Spatial Arrangement, Spatial configuration,Intermediate levels.
Introduction
The world's population is rapidly increasing, and a big number of people are migrating from villages and towns to cities for numerous reasons, such as work
prospects, educational opportunities, aspirations of an urban lifestyle etc.
With the lwwimitation of land in cities architects, planners, and engineers moved their attention from horizontal to vertical construction, resulting in the erection of skyscrapers of dazzling heights. The vertical housing models which emerged initially were constructed to cater to the growing needs of accommodation in cities and not based on the cultural structure of the gradual growth of villages into towns and neighbourhoods like traditional architecture. Vertical housing has become one of the most viable options for accommodating individuals and families, particularly those who have recently migrated.
With advancements in science and construction technology, we have been able to build large multi-story buildings rising to ‘n’ no of floors. The number of stacks has increased to optimise for density. Services, structural stability, and other aspects have all been addressed, but one of the most crucial factors "social interaction" appears to have been overlooked.
Aristotle the great Greek Philosopher quoted ‘Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual.” Man cannot live alone.
The importance of community spaces becomes even more important in a nation like India, which is rich in cultural diversity and where people are profoundly linked to their heritage and traditions. These community spaces, which bring psychological, physical, and perceptual comfort to individuals, seemed to be lost in the vertical living blocks. The importance of open and community areas in residential complexes has been evident in a number of writings and projects by numerous master architects like Ar. Charles Correa, Ar. Raj Rewal, Ar.Achyut Kanvinde etc. These community spaces, which are classified in a number
of ways and are utilised in a variety of situations, are vital but are commonly disregarded especially in vertical living blocks.
In the current times, most of the community spaces provided are on the ground floor or podium level or terrace level of a high-rise building.A critical question to be answered is whether it is possible to create community spaces at intermediate levels in a high rise building. Vertically at intermediate levels, how much percent of total space should be set aside for community areas in high-rise buildings, as social isolation of inhabitants in these residences is becoming a concern.
The problem of lack of usable community spaces in vertical housing is not a new one. Researchers and planners have made numerous efforts to minimise social and cultural difficulties in these vertical housing complexes, but are yet to find a solution. This seems to be due to the fact that the scale of the problem is far greater than the answers. Despite the relentless efforts of architects and urban planners, many users still consider decent and functional communal spaces to be an utopian dream.
The past two years have specially taught us and asked us to reflect back. When we are locked up inside our own campus, an even greater need for good and usable community areas arises. The research would seek to investigate the significance of community spaces in Vertical Housing, as well as how design may aid to encourage community living in Vertical Housing.
2.Literature Review:
2.1 Community Living in Indian Context :
“Indian towns over time were characterised by the clustering of buildings, each juxtaposed with the other, with balconies overlooking streets, and courtyards providing public space within the house, and with a scatter of terraces permitting yet another set of activities.” (Talyor & Thapar, 1992)
In the Indian context, enjoyable community spaces are particularly crucial for the healthy development of society. Indians are generally thought of as outgoing, lively, and socially active individuals who place a high value on relationships within their communities. They can even be considered intrusive.Due to an inherent spatial character and response to the environ-
ment, routine activities have been determined to take place in strategically comfortable locations in existing conventional residential neighbourhoods. These spaces have accumulated intrinsic qualities that are useful for the user communities to thrive and grow over years of living and concurrent growth. (Gulati, 2020).These community spaces assist in cultivating the feeling of cohesiveness and belonging.
2.2 Need for Vertical Housing :
Around 200,000 people relocate to a big city every day. The UN projects that nearly 7 billion people, or roughly 70% of the world’s population, will reside in urban cities by the year 2050. (MAGGON, n.d.)
Traditional residential development typically occupies a significant amount of urban space, but it can be restricted by promoting more vertical housing development. (Dewi & Wie, 2019).To keep up with the rapid pace of land development, big cities must adapt to this rapidly growing urbanisation. The switch from rural to urban areas has urged a need for housing and infrastructure to meet the population’s growing needs. With the limited availability of land in the cities, vertical housing has come up as a solution.
2.3 Community Living Requirement in Vertical Housing
Ar. Charles Correa made an attempt to provide community spaces at intermediate levels in the vertical housing scheme of MHADA. Community spaces such as welfare halls are provided at 2 levels 3.5 m and 7.5 m respectively in the 8-storey apartment. However, the project was not built. (Correa, 2000, #)
Increasing the number of stacks to optimise density has a wide range of effects, especially on community social interaction. It is possible to observe social interactions in vertical housing through their periscopes, public access, programs, hybridization, etc (Dewi & Wie, 2019).Social interaction in vertical housing can be influenced by a variety of factors.
The space configuration between the residential units and intermediate spaces that support social interaction becomes an important aspect of enhancing social communication within the community in vertical housing residents. (Dewi & Wie, 2019).Vertical housing can help with the problem of urban development while intermediate community spaces can help to resolve the social problems.Some researchers
claim that high-rise apartments lead to a series of social problems including the deterioration in the mental health of the residents(Fanning, 1967, ) (Richman, n.d., ), a reduced sense of belonging (Hall, 1966, ) (Husaini et al., 2008) (Cho & Lee, n.d., ), deficient supporting facilities (Deng, 2012), and a lack of monitoring that leads to an increased crime rate (Costello, n.d., ) (Gifford, n.d., )
The foundation for building good and healthy neighbourhood relationships is high-quality community spaces. They can help with social issues that may arise in high-rise apartments and maintain residents’ sense of belonging and community. Flexible communal space design is required to create a comfortable living environment.
When designing communal spaces, human psychology and behaviour must be taken into account. A rational and reasonable layout not only encourages more functional spaces but also improves communication within the residents. (Mcmurtrie & Saidi, n.d.).Interaction between residents of various cultural backgrounds in a community space can be improved by incorporating culture and religion into the built environment’s physical spatial characteristics.Designing communal areas with cultural and religious elements can improve residents’ spiritual sense of belonging. This is especially true in areas that experience high levels of immigration, where the diversity of language and culture appears to have a significant impact on Community living (Forest et al., n.d.,).
Research Methods
The idea of Community spaces at intermediate levels has been studied by
A.Taking examples from contemporary housing projects to understand the importance of community spaces and how master architects designed them.The following projects have been studied as secondary refrences.
Kanchanjunga apartments located in Mumbai by Ar. Charles Correa
MHADA located in Mumbai by Ar.Charles Correa
United the Habitation located in France by Le Corbusier
B. Undertaking built housing projects as case studies.
The two main factors considered for the selection of case study projects were the presence of a community space provided at an intermediate level and it should be a vertical housing.
Amanora Future towers located in Pune designed by MVRDV, Parkside retirement homes located in Bangalore by Mindspace Architects led by Ar. Sanjay Mohe, The Interlace located in Singapore by OMA led by Ole Scheeren as primary case studies.
1. A comparative analysis of the projects has been done incorporating the following parameters
2. Location of Community Spaces
3. Ground Coverage
4. Percentage of open space and community space at ground level
5. Percentage of community space at ground level and at intermediate level
6. The volume of community spaces at intermediate levels and their enclosure ratio (Ratio of height of space to width of space )
7. The accessibility of the community spaces on ground and at intermediate levels
8. Impact of community spaces on the built character of the project.
9. The design program of community spaces
10. Communal space percentage = Community space area (In sq.m) /Area of floor plate (In sq.m) x 100 ( with reference to research paper titled ‘Designing communal spaces in residential complexes published by Elsevier in 2012 )
C. Surveys were conducted to understand
1. Places people socialise the most in the housing complex they reside in,Design program and location of these spaces in the housing complex.
2. Time spent by different age groups in community spaces.
3. The accessibility both physical and visual of community spaces provided
4. The economic viability of community spaces at their place of residence.
5. Are community spaces preferred at intermediate levels, is there a need for community spaces at levels?
6. Community space share in the place of residence of users.
The data collected was with the help of google forms to reach a larger audience,on site observations and conversations with residents.
I) No.of Floors of the vertical Housing Complex
(i) Ground or G + 1 structure
(ii) Walk up Apartments ( G +2 to G +3 )
(ii) Mid Rise Apartments ( G +4 to G + 7)
(iii) High Rise Apartment I ( G +7 to G+12)
(iv) High Rise Apartment II ( G +12 and Above)
II) Age group
(i) Children(5-12)
(ii)Teenagers and students going to college (age group 14-28 years)
(iii) Adults (age group 28-55 years)
(iv) Senior citizens (age group 55+years)
D. On site observations have been documented to understand the spatial quality of the community spaces provided.
4.Analysis, Results & discussion
A.Contemporary housing projects.
1.Kanchanjunga Apartments - Ar.Charles Correa
2.MHADA , Mumbai - Ar.Charles Correa
Figure 03 : Visualisation of community space
Ar. Charles Correa made an attempt to provide community spaces at intermediate levels in the vertical housing scheme of MHADA. Community spaces such as welfare halls are provided at 2 levels 3.5 m and 7.5 m respectively in the 8-storey apartment. These spaces were visualised to be used by children to do their homework, watch television, and also by women cooperatives for various activities such as making pickles, sewing, etc. However, the project was not built.
3.Unite d’habitation :
Figure 01 : Section of Kanchanjunga apartments
The Community spaces have been provided at ground and podium level.Double height terraces in units which promote unit level interaction and also provide the users with a view of the city.The terraces interlook in the community green.These terraces are seen from the exterior facade and also add to the character to the built.They also play a vital role in ensuring natural light and ventilation throughout the day in the unit.
the residential complex
Within a modernist, mixed-use residential high rise, Le Corbusier created the community spaces at various levels.The immense volume of the structure is supported by large columns that allow for below-ground circulation, gardens, and meeting areas; the top terrace/garden forms the largest community space in the whole complex. The roof is transformed into a garden terrace with a playground, a gym, a kindergarten, and a tiny pool. Along with the roof, the interior of the structure is divided up into stores, clinics, and even a small hotel.The community percentage share is 12.5% in the entire complex.
Figure 05 : Section of Figure 02 : Part Section showing unit level interaction Figure 04: Section of the residential complex Figure 06: Section of the residential complex
B. Analysis of data collected through Surveys
Surveys were conducted in order to understand the general perception of people about community spaces.The data collected was with the help of google forms,on site observations and conversations with residents.
The data collected has been clubbed in the following sub-categories for analysis
A) Age group
(i) Children (age group 5-12)
(ii)Teenagers and young adults (age group 14-28 years)
(iii) Adults (age group 28-55 years)
(iv) Senior citizens (age group 55+years)
B)No.of Floors in the residential complex
(i) Ground or G+1 Structure
(ii)Walk up Apartments ( G +2 to G+3 )
(iii)Mid rise Apartment ( G +4 to G+7 )
(iv) High rise Apartment I ( G +7 to G+12 )
(v) High Rise Apartment II ( G +12 and higher )
ent age groups visit community spaces.It is observed that children,teenagers use the community spaces maximum during the evening hours while adults use the and senior citizens use the community space maximum during the morning hours.The time of the day people use the community spaces is dependent majorly on various factors such as daily schedule on individual and group,work load etc.
Figure 07 shows the time spent by people of different age groups in community spaces.It is observed that children,adults and senior citizens spend on average 1-3 hours while teenagers and young adults spend on average an hour or two in community spaces.
Figure 09 shows with whom do people of different age groups visit community spaces.It is observed that children visit the community spaces maximum with their siblings and parents while teenagers visit the community spaces majority of times with friends and siblings. Adults visit the community spaces maximum with their friends and children while senior citizens visit the community spaces majority of times with friends and grandchildren.
Figure 08 shows the time of the day people of differ-
Figure 07 : Time spent in community spaces by people of different age groups
Figure 08 : Time of the day people of different age groups visit community spaces
Figure 09 :With whom do people of different age groups visit community spaces
Figure 10 :Community spaces and location. Figure 10 shows various community spaces people visit in their place of residence and their location.
Figure 11 shows preferred community spaces by people of different age groups.It is observed that children like the childrens play area most followed by landscaped areas while the teenagers prefer to be at clubhouse and landscaped areas the most.Spaces such as landscaped areas,sit outs and terraces are the most preferred by senior citizens while landscaped areas, clubhouse staircases, lobbies spaces where adults interact the most and students prefer spaces such as clubhouse gymnasium to socialise.
It is observed that maximum people residing in Ground/G+1 and mid rise residence and high rise residence-II feel that the area provided for community interaction is less and the users are more while people residing in walk-up residence and high rise residence -I feel that the area provided for community interaction the area is sufficient to serve the no.of users.
Figure 12 shows distribution community spaces at various levels ground level ,podium level ,intermediate level and roof level in residential complexes.It is observed that maximum no.of community spaces are located at ground level irrespective of the residential typology.
Figure 14 shows accessibility both physical and visual and affordability of community spaces in residential complexes.It is observed that community spaces are accessible as well as affordable for people residing in ground/g+1,walk up residences and mid mid rise residences.In high rise residences the community spaces are tough affordable but physical accessibility is an average 85%.
Figure 15 : Need of Community spaces at intermediate levels Figure 15 the need of community spaces at intermediate levels by individuals or groups of individuals in a residential complex.It is observed that 60% people residing with a family in mid-rise and 65% in high rise residence think that there is a need of community space at intermediate levels while students , young individuals who reside alone or along with their friends hardly feel the need to have community space at intermediate level.It is possible that since students ,young individuals spend less time in place of residence due to academics or work they don't feel the need of community space at level.
It is observed that for people residing in standalone low-rise buildings or low-rise townships community spaces at intermediate levels are not preferred.Good,
Figure 11 :Preferred community spaces by people of different age groups
Figure 12 :Distribution of community spaces in residential complexes
Figure 13 : Community spaces and their areas.
Figure 13 shows people’s perception of the community space area provided in their place of residence.
Figure 14 : Accessibility and Affordability of community spaces.
enjoyable, and decent community space at ground level are sufficient.The need for community spaces at intermediate levels is observed in the residents of high-rise apartments/townships especially for people staying in a family. Even if the community spaces are located at ground level and are well accessible it is not always possible for the residents to come downstairs.A small community space located at their floor level or a floor up and down is good for them to socialise.The scale of these community spaces located at intermediate levels depends on the function, space available, and Design program.The basic requirement of community space at intermediate levels is a space to converse, spend leisure time socialising .
5.Inference/ Conclusion
The importance of community spaces is very important in a nation like India, which is rich in cultural diversity and where people are profoundly linked to their heritage and traditions. The idea of community spaces at intermediate levels is not a new one and is observed in various contemporary housing projects as well as the new development. Community spaces are essential in housing may it be horizontal or vertical.
A good well-designed, universally accessible community space catering to the needs of dwellers is appreciated as well as used by the dwellers. The community space should be well lit, properly ventilated, should be accessible physically as well as visually, and provide the notion of safety and security to the dwellers. The scale of the housing project, stakeholders, size and volume of community space are some of the parameters which play a vital role in the design of community spaces.
Community spaces at intermediate levels in standalone low-rise buildings or townships or walk-up apartments are not required. Good, enjoyable, well accessible and affordable community spaces at Ground or Podium level in such residential typology is appreciated and sufficient for the users.
The need for community spaces at intermediate levels is observed in the residents of high-rise apartments/townships especially for the people residing with families. It is not always possible for residents staying at higher floors to come downstairs at community spaces or send their kids down even if the community spaces are physically accessible and also
visually accessible from the higher levels. A small community space sufficient enough to serve the users of 3-4 floors is a good idea in such residential complexes. These spaces which are located a floor up or down are good for the residents to socialise. The requirement of community space at intermediate levels is a space to converse, spend leisure time socialising etc. The scale of community spaces at intermediate levels depends on the space available, function and design program. The following are some of the ideal that can be located at intermediate levels.
1. Sitouts
2. Landscaped Terraces
3. Meditation / Yoga Space
4. Indoor games play area for games such as like chess,cards,carrom etc
5. Place to play/practice music,dance and drama
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge and give my warmest thanks to my guide Ar.Garmia Buragohain who helped me pursue the research.Her guidance and advice helped me through all the stages in order to develop the research paper.I would also like to thank the entire subject team of Research in Architecture for guiding and motivating through the course of research.I would like to convey my appreciation to the numerous experts who served as my resources and gave me their wise judgments and understanding of the topic.I would like to also thank my colleagues for their timely support and insightful comments. Last but not the least my parents for encouraging me and helping me out through the entire process.Everyones generosity and expertise have greatly aided this study and i would like to thank them all.
References
1. Charles Correa Archive. (n.d.). Charles Correa Archive. http://www.charlescorreaarchives.org/
2. Cho, S. H., & Lee, T. K. (n.d.). A study on building sustainable communities in high-rise and high-density apartments – Focused on living program. Fuel and Energy Abstracts, 46(7), 1428-1435.
3. Correa, C. (2000). Housing and urbanisation (1st ed.). Urban Design Research Institute, Bombay, India.
4. Costello, L. (n.d.). From prisons to penthouses: the changing images of high-rise living in Melbourne. Housing Studies, 20(1), 49-62.
5. Deng, W. (2012). Study on the interior public space for promoting neighborhood communication of high-rise residential buildings.
6. Dewi, J., & Wie, I. W. (2019, August 5). Space Configuration of Vertical Housing for Optimal Social Interaction Support | KnE Social Sciences. KNE Publishing. https://knepublishing.com/ index.php/Kne-Social/article/view/4985
7. Fanning, D. M. (1967, 11 18). Families in flats. British Medical Journal, 4(5586), 382-386.
8. Forest, R., Yip, N., & Grange, A. L. (n.d.). Neighbourhood in a High Rise, High Density City: Some Observations on Contemporary Hong Kong. The Sociological Review,, 50(2), 215-240. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229784773_Neighbourhood_in_a_High_ Rise_High_Density_City_Some_Observations_ on_Contemporary_Hong_Kong
9. Frearson, A., & Beevor, C. (2014, September 15). Brutalist buildings: Unité d'Habitation by Le Corbusier. Dezeen. https://www.dezeen. com/2014/09/15/le-corbusier-unite-d-habitation-cite-radieuse-marseille-brutalist-architecture/
10. Gifford, R. (n.d.). The consequences of living in high-rise buildings. Architectural science review, 50(1), 2-17.
11. González, M. F. (2018, September 12). Parkside Retirement Homes / Mindspace. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/901829/parkside-retirement-homes-mindspace
12. Gulati, R. (2020, 10 09). Neighborhood spaces in residential environments: Lessons for contemporary Indian context. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1), 20-33. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S2095263519300780
13. Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday,.
14. Husaini, B. A., Moore, S. T., & Castor, R. S. (2008, October 25). Social and Psychological
Well-Being of Black Elderly Living in High-Rises for the Elderly. Taylor & Francis Online. Retrieved August 18, 2022, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J083v16n03_06
15. K€arrholm, M., Krogstie, J., & Bibri, S. E. (2020, 06 27). Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and strategies for achieving the goals of sustainability. Developments in built enviornment. https://reader. elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S266616592030017X?token=D0F77BACBBE09973022D69C2A78BF692A3D8BB3DF7B8C4E743609D1970CA5F2A3C02A8DE7A96DEFF17055A54DF-
F06E7A&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20220818140830
16. MAGGON, N. (n.d.). Is Vertical Living the Future of Architecture? - RTF. Rethinking The Future. Retrieved August 18, 2022, from https:// www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/narratives/ a4806-is-vertical-living-the-future-of-architecture/
17. Mcmurtrie, R. J., & Saidi, U. (n.d.). Feeling space dynamically: variable interpersonal meanings in high-rise apartment complexes - Robert James Mcmurtrie, 2012. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/1470357212454099
18. Richman, N. (n.d.). The Effects of Housing on Pre-school Children and Their Mothers. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology,, 16(1), 53-58. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1974.tb02711.x
19. Talyor, B. B., & Thapar, R. (1992). Raj Rewal (5th ed.). London : Mimar Publications.
20. TheOfficialHalie - Represent J.A ft. Chris Money. (2016, February 19). YouTube. https://www. archdaily.com/627887/the-interlace-oma2/55498756e58ece423b00001c-the-interlaceoma-2-photo?next_project=no
21. Wu, W., & Xin, J. G. (2020, 04). Communal space design of high-rise apartments:a literature review. Journal of Design and Built Enviornment, 20(1), 35-49. https://www.academia.edu/79998457/ Communal_Space_Design_of_High_Rise_ Apartments_A_Literature_Review